Extreme pornography law: they tried to sound sane but the law is mad

[ciphergoth]

emarkienna has published an analysis of the new extreme pornography law. They tried to sound sane and reasonable during the consultation process, but the law they've come up with is censorious madness. You can explicitly get three years inside for copying a segment from a legally-bought Hollywood movie into your porn folder.

Backlash are campaigning against the new law.

Aaaarghg.

Comments

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Nope. It requires possession of the image, not just watching.

Plus s 64 excludes classified films, so no Bond.

The reference to *extracts* from clasified films is to deal with people making cut up snuff etc movies from bits of existing X films. It is an anti avoidance provision.

Frankly I think you do the cause of free speech no good by vehemently opposing a law mainly designed to limit the worst excesses of torture porn and the creation of a hate culture towards women.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

So, as I said, if you extract that segment of the Bond movie and copy it into your porn folder, you can be sent to jail for three years and end up on the sex offenders register.

I'm sorry if I'm not embracing this law with open arms, but I stand to be jailed under it for photos I've taken myself.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

You could be in theory (maybe - I susepct they would look at the policy behind the "extracts" rule and find it DIDN't cover your situation) but the chances of you being prosecuted for that are exactly zero: both the broadsheets and the tabloids would have a field day, for different reasons.

You can look at the laws we already have and find ways to be prosecuted for almost anything already. Either you have some faith that the legal authorities in this country, judge and prosecutors, are not acting with both idiocy and malice aforethought or you don't.

Also laws are interpreted not applied like mathematical formulae - something that non legal comentaries consistently ignore.

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

It's worth looking at the Governments intentions, certainly. The explanatory notes say: 'In the case of images of staged activity , the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities.'

Do individuals need to be protected from participating in consensual acts? What right does the Government have to define what is 'degrading'?

Do you believe, as the Government does, that the material to be banned encourages violent behaviour? This is not supported by the evidence, according to the Government's own consultation paper. Do you know of evidence that backs the claim up?

Individuals are already protected from assault, both sexual and otherwise. Bestiality and necrophilia are already illegal. Why do we need this law?

Because of the Internet

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Frankly I would ignore the explanatory notes - they are usually carefully crafted to avoid giving away anything that might be a human rights challenge.

THis law is aimed squarely at the distribution of extreme snuff and torture anti-women porn in the UK via the Net. In the old days this was dealt with via distribution , for money or otherwise, offences. But now the stuff is downloaded from the Net (and via IM and P2P so you can't even get ISPs to block it) and the servers are based in Moldova and move as soon as anyone cracks down on them with mirrored content, it's almost impossible to close down supply by catching distributors.

So after a great deal of hand wringing they've been forced to move to a very limited possession offence. Yes it does break the "liberal" line of "it's ok to do anything (except shag children) in private as long as I dont scare the horses". But I personally think - having talked to various police officers etc involved in this kind of thing - that the stuff coming in is so ghastly (and yes, usually depicting crimes committed against non consenting people or with very dubious consent) that this law is justified so long as applied sensibly - which it wil be.

It is NOT aimed at consensual S and M in nice British middle class households - they had enough trouble with that over Spanner. do you think the UK govt really wants another embarrassing ECHR case? This is an enabling law, not one aimed at 100% compliance.

And meanwhile as usual the rights of those into kink (good luck to you as far as I care) and the free speech mob overwhelm any concern that ordinary people like me might have, about living in a society where men (again mostly single men, not nice poly couples) go home and get off on videos of real women being tortured and killed and raped , and yes, then occasionally go out and replicate them. Don't we get a voice as well?

Re: Because of the Internet

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

Of course, everyone should get a voice in the debate.

My feeling is that if there is a problem with *non-consensual* videos being made and distributed (again, I'd like to read more about the evidence of that, where it's coming from, why it's not being stopped in the country of origin), the countries in which they're being made should address that, and the UK government should be pushing those countries to do so. The answer is not criminalising anyone who has pictures of themselves engaged in consensual SM.

I don't trust that the law will be applied sensibly, so that is a problem we're not going to agree with one another on. You may say we wouldn't be prosecuted. Maybe not. But be unable to send our laptops away to be fixed? Yes. Be questioned by the police when they've impounded the lap top while they investigate? Yes. Be exposed to public shame and ridicule and questions about whether we should be allowed to have children etc? You bet.

But I think your real issue here is that you believe watching this stuff is anti-woman. You don't answer my question about the evidence for the link between watching staged and consensual violence and actually committing the same. It might be distasteful to you that some people enjoy watching fantasy depictions of rape and torture of women, but governments just cannot legislate on taste, and I firmly believe that's what's going on here.

Anyway, that'll be my last comment on the subject for now, but feel free to give me your come back, and links to any evidence.

Re: Because of the Internet

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Ok this is my last comment too as I have to work.

Supose people get off on real videos of real women being raped. is that just about "taste" too? If not why not? Why don't we leave that issue, of regulating the rape of women , to the place where it happens and happily watch it?

Also to expect the country of server to regulate is disingenuous. Countries like Moldova and the FSU have more to worry about than cracking down on unfindable servers and lucrative porn traders who pay the right bribes.

Why is it me who has to give evidence that torture porn might be harmful? Why not you? We live in a world steeped, drenched in violence against and hatred of women. Shouldn't we start from a presumption that having less images out there of women being humiliated killed and raped for fun might be a good start?

In summary: Some values are actually more important than some percentage of the population getting its maximum rocks off, hard as it is to come across that sentiment on LJ.

Re: Because of the Internet

[djm4]

It is NOT aimed at consensual S and M in nice British middle class households - they had enough trouble with that over Spanner. do you think the UK govt really wants another embarrassing ECHR case?

The SMers in the Spanner case took their case to the highest authority possible and lost. Consensual S & M is, with the ECHR's blessing, a potentially criminal activity in the UK. I don't find that especially reassuring.

Re: Because of the Internet

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Whether they lost of not it cost the UK huge ammounts of money and enormous amounts of international and domestic embarrassment - they will try to avoid that at all costs again.

Re: Because of the Internet

[djm4]

Well, I just plain don't believe that, especially since that doesn't seem to stop them when it comes to mistreating refugees or asylum seekers. But I don't think there's any hope of either of us convincing the other on that point.

Re: Because of the Internet

[(Anonymous)]

This law is not aimed at distribution at all, it is aimed at those consuming the material.

The idea that locking up people here will stop the makers of this material from posting it online is ludicrous. The Governments freely admits not one country it has approached has agreed to cooperate with this law.

Snuff? Well it is possible such things might exist the fact that is we have never seen evidence of a real snuff film (images of terrorists murdering people online will not be affected by this law and are not 'snuff').

Could you please give us examples of the "the stuff coming in is so ghastly" you mention? I have researched this subject a great deal and have yet to see an image of real abuse.

While it is certain some claim to be real, they obviously are not. They Show the same 'victims' in several acted scenarios and clearly show the perpetrators faces, along with USC2257 compliance. Having said that, even if this law were aimed at those that claim to be real (and are not) I would not oppose it.

You mention Spanner? Well so does the Government, in its justifications for this law.

As for 'ordinary people' having a say? I'm all for it. The Government claims that most people would find these images 'abhorrent', but then refuses to allow ordinary people, in the form of a jury, to decide if the images are acceptable to own or not, only if they fit the Government definitions.

As for 'enabling law', that relies considerably on the common sense application of it by the police. Having seen their absolute lack of reason in applying the Child porn laws (especially under operation ore), I would rather we had well written law.

The police have to date tried to prosecute people under child porn laws, for having pictures of their own children in the bath, holiday photos from naturist spots, holiday snaps that have girls in swimsuits in the background, Japanese anime/manga, meant to be portraying adults. Thankfully few such cases even get to court, but with the present climate even being under investigation for a sex offence can ruin lives.

The police know this very well and have been accused of demanding that the accused accept a caution or they will tell the poor sods family, friends and work colleagues what they are being investigated for. Hundreds of cautions were accepted under operation ore, this goes towards their 'total' of crimes successfully prosecuted, nice for the targets. How many were for real crimes and how many were just the police trying it on?

Re: Because of the Internet

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Please note my userinfo - anon comments must be signed at least with a pseudonym.

[lovelybug.livejournal.com]

I'm a woman. And a feminist.

I appear in photos on my hard drive, taken during consensual activities in which my life 'appears' to be threatened, and depending on the definition, where 'serious injury' might result. This is true of many many people in the UK. Many more may have similar images of others engaged in similar consensual acts. The Government may state that it is not their intention to criminalise sadomasochists, but the truth is that were this law to pass I could be convicted, sentenced to up to three years in prison, and added to the Sex Offenders Register, all for photos taken during consensual activities which took place in the privacy of my own home.

Do you think that's right? If not, you can't really complain about us opposing the clauses in the Bill which make it the case.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

See my reply to Ciphegoth above.